To Our Comrades in the Republican Party
MaoeeWowee
We wish to salute you for your historic boldness in the recent sweeping
nationalization of the American financial industry. In any terms
imaginable, this is the largest nationalization in the history of the
world!
At one bold stroke, you have caused the United States to become the most
socialized nation in the world! Minor matters, such as changing the name
of the country to the Socialist States of America will surely follow in
due time!
We do admit, the means you used to manage this nationalism was brilliant,
and reflected exactly the maxims of Marx about the excesses of
unregulated capitalist markets and inevitable collapse. You managed to
purchase the entire finance industry for literally one half of one
percent of its actual worth! BRILLIANT! And you forced the capitalist
dogs to come to you begging to be nationalized! This is unheard of!
Surely this is a lesson to all socialists everywhere, to look to the
Republican Party of the (former) United States for direction as to the
proper means of making correct progress towards a Socialist State!
Comrades, we stand in awe of your talents! We salute you!
World Communist Party
Vid...@tcq.net
hehehehehehe, so well said.
john fernbach
satire!
But I wonder how funny it is, really.
Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
Nobody sane wanted a replay of the 1929 stock market crash and the
ensuing world depression, and so at the last minute Uncle Sam jumped
into the ring and half-rescued, half-captured the biggest and baddest
institutions caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis.
What else could the government/should the government have done?
> hehehehehehe, so well said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
com...@webtv.net
like OUR mentor, adolf hitler...
" ISLAMa Obama = HIGHER TAXES "
darkst...@gmail.com
> yes,comrades who serve the russian army...we are very efficient...just
> like OUR mentor, adolf hitler...
Your absolute hero, Comics.
Mike (Not unlike more than a few in American history. 75-80 years
ago, you'd have joined the Bonus Army to put the poor in concentration
camps and kill them off after you killed off FDR...)
John Galt
> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> satire!
>
> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>
> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
> but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
> john fernbach wrote:
> > As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> > satire!
>
> > But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>
> > Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> > financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
> > but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
>
> Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
> economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
>
> JG
>
what planet have you been on where you missed the last 27 years? it
looks like to even the smallest child, with the barest logic
capabilities, that wall street did this to themselves.
as usual, ideology gets in the way of reality. now government has to
step in, as they did in 1933 to save capitalism from themselves.
snakehawk
> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> satire!
>
> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>
> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
> but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
>
> Nobody sane wanted a replay of the 1929 stock market crash and the
> ensuing world depression, and so at the last minute Uncle Sam jumped
> into the ring and half-rescued, half-captured the biggest and baddest
> institutions caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis.
>
> What else could the government/should the government have done?
>
The government could/should have allowed the speculators to go broke.
That's the way the system works. Take Merrill-Lynch: it no longer
exists. What was formerly Merrill-Lynch is now part of Bank of
America, a closely regulated commercial bank. We won't miss Merrill-
Lynch.
So Lehman is in similar trouble. Let Lehman disappear. Lehman's
assets and customer accounts will be taken over by another entity or
perhaps a number of entities. We won't miss Lehman.
AIG is an insurance company that insures debt. AIG is broke. Let it
disappear. We won't miss it. Other insurance companies will provide
similar services if they are needed. If not, AIG was unnecessary and
won't be missed.
The companies who are in trouble because of failed speculation are
nothing but speculators. They don't produce anything. The investors
in those companies took a risk: they lost. They will just have to
face the facts. We won't miss them either.
The idea so loudly touted that the disappearance of the speculators
will cause the collapse of Weyerhauser or Boeing or Wal Mart and that
the United States simply can't carry on without big investment bankers
occupying lavish offices and attending lavish functions is just an
absurd and illogical justification for a taxpayer bail out. The
United States can do without them. The only government agency that
should operate in such cases is the United States Bankruptcy Court.
John Galt
> On Sep 19, 8:59 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> john fernbach wrote:
>>> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
>>> satire!
>>> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>>> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
>>> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
>>> but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
>> Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
>> economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
>
> what planet have you been on where you missed the last 27 years?
The same one you have. You just interpret it like a child of four, and I
interpret it accurately.
it
> looks like to even the smallest child, with the barest logic
> capabilities, that wall street did this to themselves.
Oops. No. Ready? The free market's job is to give consumers what they
want. What did consumers want? First homes with nothing down. Second
homes for interest only. Flat panel TV's, the ability to lever
themselves 5X to income, and don't waste money on savings. Was it stupid
of Wall Street to give them all they want? Absolutely. But the
motivation for the supplier to give the consumer what they want is the
driver of the free market, and anyone who understand said market knows
never to expect the supplier to tell the consumer "no".
And, before you squeal like the predictable stuck pig you are at that
explanation, let me point out that somebody who rejects supply side
economics can't argue with the above explanation, else they be
hypocritical. If you believe that the demand side of the economic
equation is the "right" side, then you can't complain when somebody
points out that the "demand" side can also get you into trouble.
We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us.
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 8:59 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> john fernbach wrote:
> >>> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> >>> satire!
> >>> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
> >>> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> >>> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
> >>> but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
> >> Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
> >> economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
>
> >> JG
>
> > what planet have you been on where you missed the last 27 years?
>
> The same one you have. You just interpret it like a child of four, and I
> interpret it accurately.
>
and the government forced the mortgage companies and brokers to
securitize and sell toxic bonds? interesting, cite where they were
forced by government.
cite where the financial industry was forced into bad behavior when
they were deregulated. if markets are self righting, self correcting,
self policing, then deregulation would not matter.
> it
>
> > looks like to even the smallest child, with the barest logic
> > capabilities, that wall street did this to themselves.
>
> Oops. No. Ready? The free market's job is to give consumers what they
> want.
bull shit, markets according to the gosphel, are self policing, self
righting, self correcting, and all information is perfect, and all
participants are rational. so if that is true, no regulation needed.
if its not true, then its not the job of the free market to give the
population what they want if its irrational. that would harm the
investors and the company.
and if the free market does irrational things, then government
regulation is needed.
What did consumers want? First homes with nothing down.
so, a banker at the click of a mouse button can attain a persons
complete credit history, and nail down to the penny what you own, and
what you make.
so if the free market caves into the public, then markets are not
rational, not self policing, not self responsible, and not self
righting. they are incapable of rational management, and quite
possible criminal mis-management, if they do not click that button.
my kids wanted all sorts of things when they were young, as a parent,
i had to say no the the irrational stuff.
Second
> homes for interest only.
and a properly managed company would say no.
Flat panel TV's, the ability to lever
> themselves 5X to income, and don't waste money on savings.
markets are rational, and they could have said no. no one forced
them(unless this is the new course the free market cranks are
attempting to use to shift the blame for their own misdeeds is
it:))into saying yes. government did not force them, government
deregulated them.
Was it stupid
> of Wall Street to give them all they want? Absolutely.
then markets are not rational, self correcting, self responsible,
self policing, and need to be regulated, correct?
But the
> motivation for the supplier to give the consumer what they want is the
> driver of the free market, and anyone who understand said market knows
> never to expect the supplier to tell the consumer "no".
>
oh bull shit. i have worked in my past for some of the largest
retailers in america at the time. we said no to people who wanted
their credit limits lifted daily. shifting the blame is a old tired
conservative trick. it will not work this time.
> And, before you squeal like the predictable stuck pig you are at that
> explanation, let me point out that somebody who rejects supply side
> economics can't argue with the above explanation, else they be
> hypocritical. If you believe that the demand side of the economic
> equation is the "right" side, then you can't complain when somebody
> points out that the "demand" side can also get you into trouble.
>
bull shit. FDR and the new dealers set up regulations that limited
what a person could borrow, and also what a corporation could borrow,
and what was real collateral. i worked in credit departments under
these regulations. that is a pathetic attempt at blame shifting.
regulating credit, promotes real growth. from 1933, till about 1998
or so, you could only borrow against your home on a second mortgage up
to 75% of its collateral. that was deregulated in the late 90's, and i
saw ads on t.v. saying we can show you how to get 125% of the
collateral out of your home. they had to show us, they were not forced
into it. they were free to do it. you do not know what the demand side
means.
> We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us.
>
its not me.
John Galt
> On Sep 19, 9:48 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 8:59 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> john fernbach wrote:
>>>>> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
>>>>> satire!
>>>>> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>>>>> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
>>>>> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
>>>>> but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
>>>> Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
>>>> economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
>>>> JG
>>> what planet have you been on where you missed the last 27 years?
>> The same one you have. You just interpret it like a child of four, and I
>> interpret it accurately.
>>
>
> and the government forced the mortgage companies and brokers to
> securitize and sell toxic bonds? interesting, cite where they were
> forced by government. cite where the financial industry was forced into bad behavior when
> they were deregulated. if markets are self righting, self correcting,
> self policing, then deregulation would not matter.
They were authorized to do that in the National Housing Act of 1967.
Before that, securitization of mortgages was illegal.
>
>> it
>>
>>> looks like to even the smallest child, with the barest logic
>>> capabilities, that wall street did this to themselves.
>> Oops. No. Ready? The free market's job is to give consumers what they
>> want.
>
> bull shit,
Not in the least.
markets according to the gosphel, are self policing, self
> righting, self correcting, and all information is perfect, and all
> participants are rational. so if that is true, no regulation needed.
You didn't read what I wrote. You just ASSumed what I was asserting.
Reread what I wrote and then rewrite your response. Until you do that,
don't waste my time.
JG
com...@webtv.net
but then again, many people molest children and will defend their
perversion to the death...these nutcases believe in socialism like it
was a religion...they keep trying over and over and over and it fails
everytime. so, socialism has become a religion.. yes, a religion based
on the most famous radical; lucifer....
com...@webtv.net
workers must unite ! we must refuse to pay the welfare thug army any
more.
darkst...@gmail.com
> the whole "welfare thug army " belongs in concentration camps...the
> workers must unite ! we must refuse to pay the welfare thug army any
> more.
Yep. Straight out of the "Bonus Army" of 1932.
Put the poor and all their supporters into concentration camps and
kill them off -- ain't that right???
Pray we never meet.
Mike
harryh...@yahoo.com
Hey, that's funny!
Lisa
harryh...@yahoo.com
> john fernbach wrote:
> > As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> > satire!
>
> > But I wonder how funny it is, really.
>
> > Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> > financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have,
> > but to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
>
> Not much, but when socialism and government ownership trashes the
> economy over time, like it always does, we'll just fix it.
>
> JG
Hey, you're pretty funny too.
Lisa
Michael Coburn
The only thing wrong with your spiel is the Republican "supply side"
idiotology tells us that supply creates demand. It tells us that by
creating all that crap and telling people they "needed" it then the
"economy" was created and expanded. It was "pet rock"s on steroids. The
solutions were always "go shopping and put it on the credit card". And
why not .... That's how the "leaders" ran the government.
> And, before you squeal like the predictable stuck pig you are at that
> explanation, let me point out that somebody who rejects supply side
> economics can't argue with the above explanation, else they be
> hypocritical. If you believe that the demand side of the economic
> equation is the "right" side, then you can't complain when somebody
> points out that the "demand" side can also get you into trouble.
>
> We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us.
You are in many ways very correct in your position. But it depends on
what is actually being talked about. We had far too much easy credit and
why not? The Republicans have constructed the biggest credit castle ever
seen and claimed that the economy was wonderful all the way while
submerging the American taxpayers in 9 trillion dollars worth of debt.
They have fostered the current mess regardless of what sort of label you
want to attach. The 90's (until 1997) saw a dramatic increase in fiscal
responsibility and that is the sort of leadership that government should
provide. We can argue all day about what really caused the better REAL
economy of the 90's, but we KNOW who submarined it with crap like the
Public Securities Litigation Reform Act:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm -------------------
On December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing
frivolous lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that
will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have
legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have
recourse in our courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they
are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I
believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this
crucial basis of our markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode
Clinton's veto.
----------------------------------------------------------
Result = Corporate Big Boys Lie about earnings (especially the Dot Com
type companies that spent a lot of bribe money on this bill).
And after sticking that bill up Clinton's nose we have
the following
V E T O P R O O F B I L L S O F T H E G I N G R I C H P U K E S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
(people cashed in the equity on the home in order to participate
in the big casino) result of this and the "You can't sue me"
legislation above = Big Bubble in Tech Stocks.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Biley
(lets investment crazed outfits like Bear Sterns own the banks that
create the money they need to do whatever they want)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
(enron loophole) That essentially deregulated all financial "futures"
trading. Lots of hoopla over the oil stuff, but the reality is that all
electronic betting on the future of anything was taken away from the
Commodities regulators where it belonged, and not really given to the SEC
who can't find their ass in a phone both and who, under George Bush,
don't want to.
>> as usual, ideology gets in the way of reality. now government has to
>> step in, as they did in 1933 to save capitalism from themselves.
In the case of Republicans, the correct term is "idiotology" or maybe
"scam-ology".
com...@webtv.net
clinton asked for these changes...
TOLD YA....YOU BOZOS..
Heywood Jablowmi
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:c58ff249-2e02-4be4...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>its not me.
I have to agree I have in the past been turned down for credit. But
do a little research and see
letters were sent out last year handing out credit. Somewhere around
5.2 trillion letters were
sent out to the American public for credit.
Everyone was given a credit line no matter what their credit history
was.... Why ? deregulation.
The restraints were removed and banks took a big risk by giving out
credit, and mortgages
to people who traditionally would not qualify for it. No one forced
them to do it, matter of
fact it used to be the other way around, till deregulation. Everyone
was given credit, car loans
department store cards and Amreicans were being duped to live beyond
their means, a good
majority living from paycheck to paycheck and when the first bubble
hit everything fell.
Now we'll sit back and we'll all pay for being lax. For not saving.
For not living by the old
motto " If you can't afford it, you don't need it." And we'll
relearn to pay off our debts and
not live beyond our means, and not buy everything in sight.
com...@webtv.net
KNEEL TO ME ONE DAY...
michael.......
SixthtySixthSix
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com>
> As a democratic socialist, I find this post to be pretty funny. Good
> satire!
> But I wonder how funny it is, really.
> Given the panic that was gripping Wall Street as well as the world's
> financial markets, what real alternative did the US government have, but
> to half-way nationalize the financial industry?
> Nobody sane wanted a replay of the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing
> world depression, and so at the last minute Uncle Sam jumped into the ring
> and half-rescued, half-captured the biggest and baddest
institutions caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis.
> What else could the government/should the government have done?
accountability
Michael Coburn
I actually agree with this. The time for government action was in the
90's when government abandoned its oversight role and then in the early
2000's when government exacerbated the problems instead of fixing them.
And the time for government action is also __**AFTER**__ the fall. After
the crooks and liars have been made to eat their lies and crooked paper
is the time for revival. I do not subscribe to the bullshit about how
government intervention prolonged the depression of the 30's. The actions
of the Fed and the reality of the Dust Bowl are what prolonged the
depression and not the fiscal policies and interventions by the elected
government.
It would be far better to let this mess implode and THEN take action. A
huge part of that action will have been whatever it takes to get this
country __**OFF**__ the oil teat.
John Galt
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:48:03 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oops. No. Ready? The free market's job is to give consumers what they
>> want. What did consumers want? First homes with nothing down. Second
>> homes for interest only. Flat panel TV's, the ability to lever
>> themselves 5X to income, and don't waste money on savings. Was it stupid
>> of Wall Street to give them all they want? Absolutely. But the
>> motivation for the supplier to give the consumer what they want is the
>> driver of the free market, and anyone who understand said market knows
>> never to expect the supplier to tell the consumer "no".
>
>
> proper bounds. We are now witnessing the removal of government and
> the rapid fully expectable results.
That's my observation. The devil is in the details as to how to keep
said human nature within bounds, and even to know what the bounds are,
of course.
JG
John Galt
> On 21 Sep 2008 02:44:57 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm -------------------
>> On December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
>> Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
>> corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
>> presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing
>> frivolous lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that
>> will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have
>> legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have
>> recourse in our courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they
>> are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I
>> believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this
>> crucial basis of our markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode
>> Clinton's veto.
>
>
> economic bail out law:
>
> Sec. 8. Review.
>
> Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
> non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be
> reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
If that section stays, we've been sold down the river by both parties.
JG
John Galt
> phenomenal. And to drop it these assholes will ask for some
> concession. If the dems give it to them . . .
Well, CNBC is reporting that the Admin is accepting all sorts of Dem
modifications, so you can bet there's another shoe to drop.
JG